Federal Court Protects Over 1,400 Churches from ICE Enforcement

Last updated: August 20, 2026

NewsWK — Federal immigration authorities cannot conduct enforcement operations at or near more than 1,400 houses of worship across 33 states and the District of Columbia, following a major federal appeals court ruling. The decision preserves long-standing sensitive-location protections for congregations across New England and the country.

A three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a preliminary injunction issued in early 2025. That lower-court order temporarily halted a federal policy that had removed formal limits on immigration operations at religious institutions, schools, and other community locations.

Why it matters here

For faith communities in Bennington County and throughout Southern Vermont, including neighboring communities in Berkshire, Rensselaer, and Washington counties, policies regarding sensitive spaces carry direct implications for local ministry and community outreach. Regional Quaker congregations, represented through the New England Yearly Meeting and New York Yearly Meeting, are among the active plaintiffs in the litigation.

Local houses of worship often host food pantries, language classes, interfaith events, and public community suppers open to everyone regardless of background or legal status. Leaders of participating faith traditions argued that the possibility of federal law enforcement operations on church property creates fear, dissuades families from attending worship, and interferes with their core religious duties.

Federal policy and legal challenge

The legal dispute began shortly after federal authorities revised guidelines that had governed Department of Homeland Security operations since 2021. Under the previous standards, federal agents were instructed to avoid enforcement actions near sensitive locations such as places of worship, schools, and hospitals to the fullest extent possible, requiring supervisory approval before conducting operations in those areas.

When the federal government shifted that framework to give individual agents discretion based on common sense, a coalition of religious organizations filed suit. The plaintiffs included:

• Six regional yearly meetings of the Religious Society of Friends, including the New England, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Richmond, and Adelphi meetings.
• The Sikh Temple Sacramento in California.
• The Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, representing hundreds of congregations nationwide.

Legal representatives argued in federal court that the revised federal policy immediately caused a chilling effect, leading to noticeable drops in attendance at worship services, educational programs, and community fellowship events.

What the court decided

In the 40-page opinion, Senior Judge Barbara Milano Keenan wrote that the participating congregations provided clear proof that the administration’s stance created a direct burden on their religious practice. The panel found the houses of worship were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims under federal law.

Judge Keenan pointed to official federal statements indicating an intent to pursue individuals inside community buildings, noting that the threat of enforcement created genuine alarm for attendees. She explained that the resulting decline in attendance directly impaired the ability of these congregations to engage in communal worship.

In a concurring opinion, Judge G. Steven Agee emphasized the specific parameters of the preliminary injunction, noting that it does not impose a blanket nationwide ban on all federal activity. The protection applies directly to the plaintiff houses of worship and maintains the exceptions established under the 2021 guidelines, which permit law enforcement to act in emergency circumstances, during hot pursuit, or when officers hold a judicial warrant.

Reactions and what comes next

Advocates representing the religious groups welcomed the ruling as a crucial safeguard for religious freedom. Democracy Forward, the legal organization representing the plaintiffs, stated that the decision preserves protections that allow congregations to serve their neighbors without forcing leaders to compromise their mission.

Opponents of the injunction argued that federal officers should have broader latitude to enforce immigration laws anywhere in the country without specialized site restrictions, calling the restrictions unnecessary limitations on federal authority.

Federal officials maintain that immigration officers use discretion and do not arbitrarily target religious sanctuaries. However, as the underlying lawsuit moves through the legal system, the appeals court ruling ensures that the injunction will remain in place, keeping the sensitive-location safeguards active for all member congregations named in the suit.